IPCC’s Lineal Projections of a Non-Lineal World

SR15

“Global Warming of 1.5°C,” an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

Special Report SR15 (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/) recently released by the IPCC is a rehash of old policy conclusions and recommendations, repackaged to emphasize the projected effects of a 1.5°C increase in global average surface temperature over the 1850-1900 global average surface temperature.

SR15 states (A.1) “Human activities” have “caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels”;  (A.2) “Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia“; (A.3) “Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C.”

The report projects: “increases in: mean temperature …, hot extremes …, heavy precipitation …, and drought and precipitation deficits …”. The report goes on to project decreased species loss and extinction on land, a slower rate of sea level rise, reduced increase in ocean temperature and pH fluctuation, compared to the effects of a 2°C increase in GASP. But then …

Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of
1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.

It seems clear that someone or someones in the IPCC hierarchy has/have decided that 2.0°C of Global Warming is insufficiently scary to prompt world leaders to toe the Global Warming line and get on the IPCC Sustainable Development bandwagon.

Choosing between 1.5°C and 2°C of acceptable warming increase is akin to deciding which deck chair to throw over the rail of the Titanic to keep it afloat. In reality, nothing humans can do or not do will significantly change the rate and “direction” of climate variation. Allow me to explain:

The entire concept of Global Warming, aka Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the latest aka “Climate Disruption,” is based on (at least) three assumptions:

1) Global Warming (calculated as Global Average Surface Temperature or GASP) equals Global Climate Change;

2) Human produced CO2 is the thermostat for all observed climate variation since the ill-defined beginning of the Industrial Revolution; and

3) Presently observed climate variation will continue indefinitely into the future at the same rate or faster.

Temperature is only one variable of climate. We go outside. It’s warm or it’s cold. It’s warmer or colder than it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Last year was warmer or colder than this year. Alaska is colder than Southern California.

Global Average Surface Temperature (GASP) is derived from some of the temperature measurements from existing instruments around the planet, adding them up and dividing by the number or readings. Raw data are frequently manipulated by a variety of correction factors thought to balance the widely differing characteristics of instrument stations around the world. (This is, of course, incredibly simplified, but you get the idea.)

So-called “Global Climate” is then depicted as a graph, usually as a time series of GASP, usually converted to “temperature anomalies” from an arbitrarily selected time period, for example, + or – differences from the global average surface temperature between 1850-1900. The result is promoted as significant and meaningful, and all manner of dire troubles for humans and all other life are variously interpreted from these simple graphs.

https://i0.wp.com/cdn1.globalissues.org/i/climate/global-temperature-anomalies-1800-2014.pnghttps://threegenerationsleft.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/crclimatep1.gif?w=700

https://i1.wp.com/climatechoices.co.uk/images/globalTempCO2.gifhttps://i1.wp.com/www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Global-warming-trend.jpg

What is ignored in these projections is that Global Average Surface Temperature is a meaningless calculation, and there is no global average climate to change.

In a 1964 published article (“The Problem of Deducing the Climate from Governing Equations,” Tellus 16 (1964), pp. 1-11), Edward Lorenz established that a highly complex adaptive systems such as weather does not converge to an average. In other words, weather variability is so complex that averaging the extremes produces a perception of “climate” that is meaningless in terms of predictability. Weather variability is the result of a complex system of interacting variables that cannot be predicted with any reliability beyond a day or two.

This reality is further complicated by arbitrary (or self-serving) choices of endpoints in comparisons of GASP trends. In the graphs above, start and end points of temperature anomalies, and the date range of the average to which they are compared, are chosen to emphasis a particular conclusion. The beginning points of the graphs are usually chosen as 1850, because that aligns with the almost universally held assumption that global warming and/or climate change began with human CO2 production as a result of the industrial production based on fossil fuels. This ignores the reality that today’s observed GASP increase began in the mid-1600s, not 1850, long before human CO2 emissions.

None of this matters to the IPCC, however, as it’s business is political policy recommendation rather than scientific theory confirmation. The IPCC produces projections of future risk assessment, not predictions of actual outcomes. That’s why their reports are couched in terms of scenario ranges rather than discrete events.

https://i0.wp.com/slideplayer.com/slide/8651031/26/images/4/IPCC+GHG+emission+scenarios.jpg

Even though weather and climate variability are nonlinear and therefore unpredictable other than in meaningless general terms, IPCC reports persist in deriving linear conclusions from the nonlinear data, as in A.1 through A.3 above. That’s the IPCC’s job, in support of the political and economic agendas that prompted the formation of the IPCC in the first place.

Global climate change consists of long term fluctuations in global weather patterns, such as the periodic change from from glacial to interglacial periods over the past several million years. Climate variability consists of shorter term fluctuations in global weather patterns within those larger cycles, such as the warming period we are experiencing now, coming out of the most recent cooling period of the Little Ice Age. This too shall pass as we make our way through the Holocene toward the next glacial period on the horizon.

Will the alarming prognostications of the IPCC come to pass? Will reducing our “carbon footprint” stop Global Warming or even change climate variation and climate change? No one knows.

What we can know is that we cannot predict what weather will be like in the future, so we would be well advised to organize ourselves and our material culture in ways that are more resilient in the face of inevitable change.

Ecosocialism: the alternative that isn’t

Yes, I know I promised to go through the Way of Nature elements. But first, I want to write about an element that is not included in my Way of Nature analysis:

green Marx.jpgEcosocialism

Now, before you click away from here in disgust at the term, bear with me for a moment while I explain why I’ve not included ecosocialism as an element of the Way of Nature.

 

From Wikipedia:

“Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

“Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the commons.”

Delving into ecosocialism is a lot like stepping into a steaming swamp where you can’t see the firm bottom. It’s chief proponents, Ian Angus in Canada, Derek Wall in the UK and the late Joel Kovel in the United States, have written voluminously on the subject, as it has evolved over the past 17 years. Ian Angus’s Climate and Capitalism website is the best place to explore the history and current development of ecosocialism.

Why do I exclude ecosocialism from my Way of Nature?

Ecosocialism began as a breakaway political philosophy from standard, everyday Marxism, an admirable attempt to align classic socialist economics with modern understandings of the effects of human social systems on the natural world. Unfortunately, because of its basic Marxist underpinnings, it falls short in two important respects: human population, and human consumption of natural resources.

Population Control

Adherents of ecosocialism are unswervingly opposed to any form of population stabilization or control. This roadblock to thought and rational analysis arises from Marxist focus on economic justice. Ecosocialists hold than any form of population control would preferentially affect people of color, people in poverty, people of the global south. This refusal to consider the detrimental effects of increasing population is extended to immigration as well, holding that people should be free to move from place to place at will.

Consumption

One of the basic Marxist assumptions of socialism is that with the elimination of capitalism, production will be for use and not for profit, and therefore increased technological production would create enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, equally in every part of the human world. In such a “post-scarcity” world, human consumption of natural resources would decline and reduce impacts on the natural world.

I = P x A x T

These two ecosocialist assumptions ignore the formula for measuring and predicting global human impacts on the natural world developed by Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren in the 1970s:

I = P x A x T – Impact on the nonhuman world is a function of affluence and technology, multiplied by population.

While it may be true that a socialist economy of use value eliminating production for profit value would reduce per capita production and consumption (this has never been demonstrated historically), this positive result would be held hostage to a growing population, which would overwhelm any gains through a reduction in production.

Stabilizing population growth, even unto the point of reducing human population globally, need not affect any particular population over any other. An ecosystem-based analysis of local human population pressures could be used to stabilize global population by reducing population levels in areas of high impact and stabilizing populations in areas of lower impact. Methods of such population control would be implemented based on local cultures and economies.

Lifting restrictions on immigration ignores the realities of local ecosystems and carrying capacities. If humans are free to drift from place to place, in response to population and social pressures, local ecosystems will quickly degrade in areas where the human drift accumulates. While restrictions on immigration by arbitrarily designated state boundaries might not be desirable from a social standpoint, an ecosystem-based analysis of human population pressures must be used to avoid undesirable negative impacts on the local ecosystem. If social relations in  a particular region are undesirable, humans should solve their problems in place, rather than exporting them to other ecosystems that may be less capable of withstanding increased human impacts.

In the end, despite its optimistic appellation, ecosocialism is yet another anthropocentric philosophy that begins and ends with human benefit as its primary concern and only tangentially addresses the detrimental effects of human growth and technology on the non-human world.

Socialism, even ecosocialism, offers no inherent alternatives to capitalism with regard to human consumption and destruction of natural habitats.

Now then, back to The Way of Nature.

Putting it all together or taking it all apart?

jigsaw-puzzle

On one of my other websites, The Way of Nature, I’ve described many of the elements of an ecosophy that seeks to balance human activity with the natural world. These are philosophies and practices that I find attractive when thinking about the horrible mess this human world has created at the expense of the broader biosphere.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t see any way for the current dominant human way of life to continue much longer. There just aren’t enough resources on this the only planet we can inhabit to support 7+ billion human beings without destroying the habitats of the eleventy bazillion other inhabitants, including our own. The human world is caught up in social systems and philosophies antithetical to living in harmony with all other life. There is no sign at present of any serious movement to change to alternative lifestyles that offer any prospect for continuing into the foreseeable future.

Visualize Civilizational Collapse

A combination of environmental, social and economic collapse seems inevitable, most likely within the lifetime of those living today. A civilization (sic) based on unlimited growth coupled with exponentially increasing consumption of finite resources will inevitably expire in a much deserved collapse, just as previous civilizations and empires suffered the same ignominious end.

If there is such a thing as natural laws, this must be one of them. Any species that eats itself out of house and home will drag itself down the evolutionary porcelain parkway with alacrity. Rabbits do it. Caribou do it. Even plants do it.

The difference is that, unlike humans, non-human animals and plants have natural predators that keep their numbers in check, and that, providentially, strengthen the prey species by eliminating the halt and the weak and the diseased. But hubristic humans insist that “every sperm is sacred” and no individual shall be allowed to die without massive medical intervention to keep them alive and breeding… for a price.

So it seems truly well and good that human civilization should take its place in the good old dustbin of history and make way for what is to come afterwards.

What comes after Civilization?

It’s seems most likely that once human civilization has had its way with this planet, and descended into the abyss of evolutionary despair, there will be insufficient resources remaining for humans to claw their way back out of the hole they have dug for themselves and build a new shining city on the hill to hold dominion over all once again.

This is where the Way of Nature comes into the story.

Any future human world will, of necessity, be organized in harmony with natural cycles of resource availability, just as are all other extant species on the planet. It will be characterized by the same features as other species: diversity, adaptability, humility, cooperation and unswerving patience.

In other words, any post-collapse civilization will live by the Way of Nature.

Take some time to review the elements of the Way of Nature, and we’ll start going through them in the next post on Searching for Balance.

More reading on collapse:

  • Collapse, Jered Diamond
  • The Party’s Over, Richard Heinberg
  • The Enemy of Nature, Joel Kovel
  • Good News, Edward Abbey
  • Toward an Ecological Society, Murray Bookchin
  • Human Scale Revisited, Kirkpatrick Sale
  • The Twilight of American Culture, Morris Berman

via The Global Growth of U.S. Special Operations Forces

Unless they end in disaster, most missions remain in the shadows, unknown to all but a few Americans. And yet last year alone, U.S. commandos deployed to 149 countries — about 75% of the nations on the planet.

As I’m reading Chalmers’ Johnson’s penultimate book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, a sobering read, I’ve become more aware of signs of the movement of the United States government towards a global empire, albeit a rapidly declining global empire, such as the cited article above.

The inevitable comparison to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire leaps immediately to mind, along with most every other empire that has existed on this benighted and abused planet we humans overinhabit. But that’s just a literary allusion. The US Empire is real, it originates in the government that professes to represent me and my interests, and I, whether I agree with it or not, bear a modicum of responsibility for its actions.

I don’t know what to do about this. After 40+ years of environmental and political activism, I’m pretty discouraged with the prospects of being able to influence the course of action of the United States government, let alone the government of any other country. Even at the local level, I see city and county government increasingly in thrall to development interests (aka money) at the expense of the constituent residents of these jurisdictions. There is a strong tendency for local government to meet with development interests (aka “stakeholders”) and formulate policies and projects behind closed doors, then turn to the Economic Development Department to lobby the citizenry to accept the governments foregone conclusions and plans.

The is democracy turned on its head. The only meaningful response is increased citizen participation in local decision making, demanding that government respond to residents needs and desires, before those of development and business interests.

The problem is that few citizens are willing to engage in local politics other than a periodic trip to the polling booth, or increasingly, a trip to the post office with a mailed-in ballot.

Voting for candidates in a representative government is not democracy. Voting is the failure of democracy, rule by the people. Our representative republican government was chosen specifically to rule out democracy, viewing the citizenry as the unwashed masses who are incapable of conducting the affairs of government, which should be reserved for property owners, aka the rich elite minority. Thus, our system of government has evolved from “one man, one vote, to “one dollar (or more), one vote.”

If we are to learn anything from the history of empire in human affairs, it is this: all empires have fallen to excessive militarism and imperialism, substituting democratic decision making with authoritarian, centralized military/industrial oligarchies, necessitating propaganda and information control to keep the rabble in line.

This is where we are today, in a global militaristic culture in which imperialism has replaced statecraft, and the governed, that’s us, are viewed as infinitely pliable puppets whose only role in government is to supply the manufactured consent required to maintain the illusion of democracy.

I haven’t yet decided which path I’ll follow in the few years I have left to roam this planet: either dig a hole and pull in the dirt over me, or dedicate the rest of my life to working locally to demand involvement in local decision-making and support popular assemblies as a legitimate form of local government.

So far, day to day, the latter continues to win out.

The Price of Democracy

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” – John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election for Lord Mayor of Dublin, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.) as quoted in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations

This quotation is especially pertinent to local city and county government these days. I’ve noticed that more and more of our local government business is being planned and decided behind closed doors, to be trotted out before the public for us to rubber stamp their predetermined plans.

I’m thinking particularly of city and county plans for massive new developments in the so-called “Transportation Corridors” projects, and the Downtown Library cum parking garage fiasco here in Santa Cruz. These projects would drastically change the ambience of Santa Cruz City and County, and would, not coincidentally, benefit local contractors and developers.

I’ve also seen an increase in “Ad-Hoc” subcommittees in local government, the meetings of which are excluded from public attendance, except when citizens have loudly and publicly insisted that they be open to public observation.

The price of democracy is indeed eternal vigilance, whether Thomas Jefferson really said that or not.

 

Smart Growth is an Oxymoron

pexels-photo-109919“They cannot see that growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness, that Phoenix and Albuquerque will not be better cities to live in when their populations are doubled again and again. They would never understand that an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human.”   ― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

This is one of Ed’s most telling quotes, one that is increasingly relevant to conditions in today’s cities and counties across this overburdened continent.

In my fair village on the Pacific Coast, local government is strangling in problems caused by a rapidly growing, profligate populace. What is government’s answer to the problems of homelessness, drug abuse, gang violence and crime? Why, more growth, of course!

In reaction to the inability of local government to deal with rising social problems, and increasing impacts on the non-human world casued by unlimited growth, common interest groups are forming to bring pressure on government officials to recognize the needs and desires of the local populace, in opposition to development interests fomenting back-door deals outside of public view.

Local government officials have resorted to corporate strategies to limit public participation in the decision making process, such as “charettes” that divide attendees at public meetings into small, moderated groups to diffuse and obfuscate their comments and control the discussion. Participants in public meetings are referred to in bureaucrat-speak as “stakeholders,” a term that equates corporate development interests with local residents. Government commissions and committees are viewed as representing “public interest,” even though the members of these representative groups are not chosen by the public and have no legitimate constituency.

What is needed is more neighborhood and community groups, meeting in homes and public venues, marching to city and county government meetings, writing letters to the editor (if such creatures still exist) and speaking out at every opportunity on behalf of resident interests, the non-human world and untrammeled natural habitat. When dozens of community residents show up at public meetings, government officials are forced, if only to avoid public embarrassment, to acknowledge community interests and modify their pre-ordained plans.

Here are some examples of local groups formed to oppose local government growth mania in Our Fair County: Harbor Neighbors, Capitola Road Neighbors, Don’t Bury the Library, Friends of Arana Gulch, Friends of Corcoran Lagoon Beach, Friends of San Lorenzo River Wildlife.

In the absence of meaningful public participation, government devolves to that which is designed and supported by those who show up, those who wear suits and ties, those who count success in six figure dollars, those who care little or not at all for the natural world that still remains. Growth maniacs who promote unlimited population and economic growth with no thought to its consequences on the human or the natural world.

 

 

The Internet of Laundry

It was inevitable. The Internet of Things has invaded the laundry room at our mobile home park.

This morning I took our clothes to the laundry room in our park’s clubhouse. Four washers, four dryers. You put your clothes in the washer, add detergent, push the buttons and come back a half hour later to hang the clothes up in the drying yard outside the door. Or if it’s raining, put them in a dryer and add even more coinage.

This morning there was a new twist:

The washers sat in their accustomed row, mouths agape, waiting patiently for my dirty clothes and offerings of coin of the realm. But wait! What’s this?

Sometime in the night, someone affixed two red and black signs to the pristine whiteness of each washer and dryer, signs that portend the end of the last remaining stronghold of analog technology.

DSCN7524The Internet had arrived in the laundry room!

In trembling trepidation I read the ominous signs of things to come:

PAY WITH YOUR PHONE”  “DOWNLOAD FREE APP”   “SCAN QR CODE

In truth, the Internet had not completely invaded the laundry. One has to download the appropriate application (“app” to those in the know) into one’s “smart” phone/camera (provided one has one of these ubiquitous devises. My wife and I don’t and never will) and then do whatever is necessary to connect that information to the Internet. Somehow, I presume, the Internet siphons your money from your bank account and tells the washing machine or dryer to start up.

This is a scenario that not even the most imaginative science fiction writers of my youthful reading past ever imagined! Not only that there would be such technology available in the humble laundry room, but that everyday people would be able to use it, or even want to!

I prefer the technology of my life to be always within my control, accessible when I want it, dormant when not. I want my thermostat (if I needed one, which I don’t) to be a simple thermal switch, responding only to the change of temperature in my house. I want my refrigerator to keep food cold, and my stove to make things hot. I don’t want them to talk to me or send me emails regarding their condition. I want my car to start up when I turn the key, to not make rude noises or talk to me, to be accessible for simple DIY repairs and maintenance as needed, and to not require a mechanic with a degree in computer programming and a CPA to fix it when it’s broken.

I’ll continue to hoard my quarters, insert them one by one into the proffered receptacle with a satisfying analog clink and press the “Start” button with my very own finger. This is sufficient, with no need for a multi-billion dollar cell phone industry to do my laundry once a week.

I’ll pass on the Internet of Laundry, thank you very much.